5 ms·

The money right now is in apps. It's why ideas like Mozilla's B2G will struggle. It's why Adobe has thrown so many resources at AIR. To reiterate; If you ask a

The money right now is in apps. It's why ideas like Mozilla's B2G will struggle. It's why Adobe has thrown so many resources at AIR. To reiterate; If you ask a user if they prefer an app on their smartphone or a website, you'll be told an app. Flash really isn't a player in that regard. In truth it should've never been and hasn't wanted to be for a while. HTML sites will be and rightfully so, the standard for a long time. But we're living in the age of the app now. It's far more social and measurable than a website can hope to be. It's kinda like "there's web presence and there's PRESENCE" the app provides that in a way where by a website remains simply functional.

tensafefrogs 15y ago
I'm curious what you think about the issue of mobile apps and scalability (in terms of having a distinct app for everything you do on your phone). The argument is that users won't want to install a separate app for all the various things they do on their phones (especially not the things that they don't do often) and would perhaps favor a mobile website instead.
- sabret00the 15y ago
  You have some users who hate the idea of installing loads of things and those are generally users who have the phone for having the phone sake. They're users that have been forced to migrate to smartphones from featurephones. You also have the social users who like being able to talk about their apps with their friends and share via the different services available. For those users, which often overlap the more 'ignorant' users, what they simply want is a reachable recognisable service they can use anywhere. The argument that users don't/won't install lots of apps on their phones is simply wishful thinking. The reality is exactly the opposite of that. Users that have traditionally struggled with various features of the internet in browsers are able to do what they've always wanted in apps with far more ease. Even despite the a lot of the Mozilla community being dead-set against using a native UI, they've pushed on and will eat more market share as a result due to the instantly recognisable interact they'll get as they launch the app rather than waiting for the interface to load on XUL/HTML/JS/XML that just aren't as quick. You also have to take into account that with a website, you have no one to run to. Users generally feel ignored, where as with the social aspect of any app market users feel like they're patt of a community. Anything that currently states users prefer websites over apps is incredibly ignorant of the facts. A prime example is with Twitter. Tweetdeck on desktop and mobile shows far more usage than that of the website. As does Ubersocial and in fact their own apps. There's a firm desire on the parts of many to see people use the web over apps but those are merely desires of a small percentage.
secretbatcave 15y ago
Where are the HTML5 web adverts? They don't exsist because: 1)you have to code things 4 times (once for all the browsers + fallback) 2) There are no artist friendly tools (google's flash translator only works for chrome, see above) 3) Everything looks different in each browser 4) JS animation is Sllllloooooowww 5) Animation primitives are missing, those that exsist are from the 1960s 6) there are no mature standard/implementations (in widescale use) with flash's workflow you: 1) create a flash file with the mature tools, test, release 2) create an animated gif as fallback yes its buggy, and the video is slower than decent native support, but it works the same across all browsers (90%)
- william42 15y ago
  Considering that animated advertisements are the scourge of the Internet, if it weren't for the legitimate uses of the things you mention, I'd consider the crippledness a feature. Advertisements should be text or images. Even animated GIFs are pushing it.
nasmorn 15y ago
I disagree. You can market an app if you have a real product but I will not install an app to read your newspaper or to see where your shop is. Not even to look up a cinema. Unless there is a real need for client side interaction I dread apps. I don't want to basically have your website on my phone that I now need to update regularly. And I certainly don't want to do social with my grocery store. Where is the added value for me here?

tensafefrogs 15y ago

I'm curious what you think about the issue of mobile apps and scalability (in terms of having a distinct app for everything you do on your phone). The argument is that users won't want to install a separate app for all the various things they do on their phones (especially not the things that they don't do often) and would perhaps favor a mobile website instead.

sabret00the 15y ago
You have some users who hate the idea of installing loads of things and those are generally users who have the phone for having the phone sake. They're users that have been forced to migrate to smartphones from featurephones. You also have the social users who like being able to talk about their apps with their friends and share via the different services available. For those users, which often overlap the more 'ignorant' users, what they simply want is a reachable recognisable service they can use anywhere. The argument that users don't/won't install lots of apps on their phones is simply wishful thinking. The reality is exactly the opposite of that. Users that have traditionally struggled with various features of the internet in browsers are able to do what they've always wanted in apps with far more ease. Even despite the a lot of the Mozilla community being dead-set against using a native UI, they've pushed on and will eat more market share as a result due to the instantly recognisable interact they'll get as they launch the app rather than waiting for the interface to load on XUL/HTML/JS/XML that just aren't as quick. You also have to take into account that with a website, you have no one to run to. Users generally feel ignored, where as with the social aspect of any app market users feel like they're patt of a community. Anything that currently states users prefer websites over apps is incredibly ignorant of the facts. A prime example is with Twitter. Tweetdeck on desktop and mobile shows far more usage than that of the website. As does Ubersocial and in fact their own apps. There's a firm desire on the parts of many to see people use the web over apps but those are merely desires of a small percentage.

secretbatcave 15y ago

Where are the HTML5 web adverts? They don't exsist because: 1)you have to code things 4 times (once for all the browsers + fallback) 2) There are no artist friendly tools (google's flash translator only works for chrome, see above) 3) Everything looks different in each browser 4) JS animation is Sllllloooooowww 5) Animation primitives are missing, those that exsist are from the 1960s 6) there are no mature standard/implementations (in widescale use) with flash's workflow you: 1) create a flash file with the mature tools, test, release 2) create an animated gif as fallback yes its buggy, and the video is slower than decent native support, but it works the same across all browsers (90%)

william42 15y ago
Considering that animated advertisements are the scourge of the Internet, if it weren't for the legitimate uses of the things you mention, I'd consider the crippledness a feature. Advertisements should be text or images. Even animated GIFs are pushing it.

nasmorn 15y ago

I disagree. You can market an app if you have a real product but I will not install an app to read your newspaper or to see where your shop is. Not even to look up a cinema. Unless there is a real need for client side interaction I dread apps. I don't want to basically have your website on my phone that I now need to update regularly. And I certainly don't want to do social with my grocery store. Where is the added value for me here?